Church and State
Whether or not Mitt Romney scores political points with his religion speech, he eloquently defended the notion that religiously informed morality has a role to play in civic discourse.
According to the shared wisdom of the punditocracy and the blogosphere, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney badly needed a "JFK moment" when he flew into College Station, Texas, to deliver a Dec. 6 speech on religious conviction and American democracy at the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library. But what, precisely, do we mean by a "JFK moment" on matters of church and state?
John F. Kennedy's speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association was a rhetorical and political success, in that it successfully defused the "Catholic issue" in the 1960 presidential sweepstakes. Yet no serious student of the centuries-long American debate on church and state regards the Kennedy speech as a significant substantive contribution to our national reflection on the endlessly interesting, endlessly complicated question of how religious conviction can (or should) shape a politician's public action. At Houston, JFK declared his faith a private matter which had had no public consequences on his legislative career and would have no impact on his performance as president. At Houston, John F. Kennedy won by changing the subject.
It remains to be seen whether Mitt Romney's speech is as politically effective as JFK's. But at College Station, Romney displayed a greater seriousness about the questions at issue than Kennedy did at Houston. And in doing that, Romney may actually have advanced the national conversation on religious conviction and public life. In a campaign season that all too typically involves the political manipulation of consumer passions by means of sound-bites and advertising, that would be no mean accomplishment.
Romney got a lot of things right at College Station. He displayed an impressive sense of just how deeply religiously informed moral conviction is woven into the fabric of American life. At the same time, he suggested that he recognizes other paths to moral truth that are not religious in character.
He got the American Founding right, suggesting that the Framers' prohibition of a national church--"no establishment"--was intended to foster the free exercise of religion, not to drive religion into a private sphere with no connection to public life. In doing so, Romney implicitly challenged a dominant strain in the Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence since the late 1940s, a trend that has pitted "no establishment" against "free exercise." The result? "No establishment" becomes the overriding constitutional concern, with exceptions being carved out for certain kinds of "free exercise" from time to time.
Romney correctly pointed out that the alternative to today's maddeningly diverse, but democratically vibrant, plurality of religious voices in the American public square is not a neutral or naked public square, but the de facto establishment of secularism as the official national "creed." That process of "establishing" secularism is already well under way in Europe, at both the national and European Union levels; some would argue (not without reason) that Europe's soul-withering secularism has at least something to do with Europe's sclerotic democratic discourse. And Romney was very good in proposing that shared moral principles of human dignity and human equality can serve as a kind of public grammar, disciplining the public dialogue so that people of no faith and people of faith can engage in a civil conversation about the oughts of our public life.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: wildlifeusa @ 04/06/2008 4:12:50 PM
Comment: Mixing religion and politic is dangerous it is a fact! the middle east is a good example. religions have to stay out of politics. Period!
Posted By: Johndavidprince @ 03/17/2008 9:57:35 AM
Comment: There are people who abuse the term or concept ???freedom of religion??? without really understanding the true depth of the words involved. Lets start with the word religion. What is a religion: the belief, habit, ritual, thought, or faith? I believe all synonyms would apply to the definition of the word. Religion could be how I tie my shoes, my political ideas, my thoughts on science, or my feelings toward a particular brand name (in some cases consumerism qualify as religion). Many only argue that religion is strictly a word with a monopoly pertaining only to God or the Church. If you can make the argument that even atheistic approaches that of a religion; then one has to accept that my views on foreign policy or free trade qualify as a religion. Religion is a single or series of repeated behaviors and or thought. That is why we have a freedom of speech, privacy, and the freedom of religion within the constitution. All the concepts of the document from our revolutionary era uphold one another. They cannot exist without the other. These rights are all a form or relative or thought. They are all an attempt to protect the freedom of thought. Such wording of the constitution has to be interpreted with the full meaning of the word. For words are ideas, concepts, or theologies in and of themselves. Now think about the word freedom. I hope we all understand what freedom is. As well we should also think about what we do not have the freedom to do. There are many thoughts that are originated within Biblical religion that people do not have the right to do; consider many verses of Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Revelation, and other books of the Bible. (I would hope we all know which verses they are) We do not have a total freedom for Biblical Church based religion. If we did, we would be living in a world of chaos, torture, and general madness including witch burnings, stoning, forced conversion, or beheadings. There are concepts in the secular world that are beliefs which are illegal they are the current laws on the books. Those laws are a record of what belief or thoughts you shall not hold. So beware when Biblical religion claims they have the power, the right, or the protection to conduct their actions when in conjunction with the government. There are some who would claim that Biblical religion has the freedom of religion as to fuse with the government or take on the responsibilities/functions of government with tax dollar support. My faith-based program is the issue and unconstitutionality of faith based programs and any vicarious use of those programs for the potential of converts via the heading of people to faith based services. The Church should function independently from government at all times. This serves the society in protection of the true freedom of religion, our freedom of thought.
Posted By: Johndavidprince @ 03/17/2008 9:55:36 AM
Comment: The term Secular has been tainted by many in the US to mean Atheism with out thinking about why government is Secular. Secular government is the removal of religion from state, the removal of religion from reason, logic, and law while respecting its existence outside of government. Secular Government protects the freedom of religion by not including it in the laws that govern the nation. Steven Waldman (speaking of faith NPR) could not be more incorrect when he mentions the founding fathers personal belief as proof that religion or the church should fuse with government. State written prayers, church/religion, or state belief systems violate the individuals right to believe as they choose. Steven Waldman should realize that a secular government keeps any singular form of religion from taking control of the government. A secular system of democracy is the cornerstone to the foundation of the amendments that allow citizens the right to believe in any or no religious system. The separation of church and state or the anti-establishment clause of the constitution allows Christian religious conservatives to practice their faith as they see fit. As well it protects the Buddhist, Hindu, or any other religion, the freedom of religion does not mean that any one religion has a right to use the state as a tool for self-advancement. The argument that the separation is a gray area is a fallacy. A nation is either secular or theocratic. There is no gray area. The separation of church and state was not intended for the flourishing of any one religion. It was intended to keep all belief free by keeping the state out or belief. There is no mention of any sectarian definition of God used in any historical document of the US, nor should there be. Waldman should remember that there was no founding faith outlined in the declaration of independence or the constitution. I would ask Waldman who???s God does it refer to? Does religion truly make for improved civic or individual behavior patterns? Some of the worst elements of society have been devoutly religious, Hitler, the BTK killer, the leaders of the Christian and Muslim crusades, the witch hunters of Europe and early America, Bin Laden, and on and on it goes. Yes there was Stalin and Poll Pot but they pale in comparison to the religious violence perpetrated over the millennia. So I would argue that the founding fathers knew history well and that is why they created a secular government even while they may have been religious themselves. It is sad that many Christians hear the term religion and think only of themselves. How greedy and self-serving. We must realize that secularism rejects religion in government while recognizing its right to exist separate from government, in the privacy of your home and places of worship. It recognizes God given rights while not recognizing any particular organized religion.